Religious Liberty vs Sexual Orientation as a protected Class

[Vorpal]

Recently a Christian medical organization claimed that it really does not have the responsibility to hire gay employees or to treat disorders that are related to sin.

Also there's a situation where a photographer said she doesn't want to go to these weddings and take pictures of things that really Disturbed her like two men holding hands, kissing, and everyone celebrating something that she thinks violates her religion.

I think the first scenario involving a medical organization is off its rocker really. They chose to enter the sphere of medical care and you know it's a public accommodation and they need to provide treatment in bounds with what the profession entails. And, gays make great nurses

Amazingly I think the situation for photographer really really isn't Fair because it requires her to immerse herself in a ceremony and an experience that's intense. Now this is in contrast to a baker making a cake the cake goes to the ceremony the baker doesn't so he needs to get over it.  The photographer has rights just because she's a photographer doesn't mean she has to take pictures of anything. She can choose her clients. If there are other photographers available, there is no reason why she should have to attend that kind of ceremony. Now if she's an expert of high regard and there's no one quite as good as her in the region, I guess that's too bad,  because there's got to be some limits here there's got to be some gradations and fairness for both sides.

[Cavebear]

Recently a Christian medical organization claimed that it really does not have the responsibility to hire gay employees or to treat disorders that are related to sin.

Also there's a situation where a photographer said  she doesn't want to go to these weddings and take pictures of things that really Disturbed her like two men holding hands, kissing, and everyone celebrating something that she thinks violates her religion.

I think the first scenario involving a medical organization is off its rocker really. They chose to enter the sphere of medical care and you know it's a public accommodation and they need to provide treatment in bounds with what the profession entails.  And, gays make great nurses

Amazingly I think the situation for photographer really really isn't Fair because it requires her to immerse herself in a ceremony and an experience that's intense. Now this is in contrast to a baker making a cake the cake goes to the ceremony the baker doesn't so he needs to get over it.  The photographer has rights just because she's a photographer doesn't mean she has to take pictures of anything.  She can choose her clients. If there are other photographers available, there is no reason why she should have to attend that kind of ceremony. Now if she's an expert of high regard and there's no one quite as good as her in the region, I guess that's too bad,  because there's got to be some limits here there's got to be some gradations and fairness for both sides.

I think that no individual should be required to accept a client.  However, I think that a public walk-in business should be required to take any and all customers.  The problem comes when specific art is involved.

What I'm trying to get at is that the degree of involvement matters.  I think a baker can't refuse to sell a standard displayed cake to a couple of guys kissing each other in the shop or for the stated purpose of offerring it to friends at a gay marriage, but can refuse to use icing on a cake to depict genitals or some messages offensive to them.

Yeah, it's a difficult line to draw in the sand.  It's sort of a "yelling fire in a crowded theater" vs "free speech" thing.

I think the baker (as an example) can refuse to decorate a cake in a way offensive to them, but not just because of who the customer is.  And advertising matters.  "We'll Do It Your Way" is different from "Tell Us What You Want".

[airportkid]

The religious jackasses claiming they should be permitted to discriminate based on "sin" only care about one "sin":  Sex.  And not all Sex, just a narrow slice of possible sexual practice.  They don't seem to care if someone is a pedophile, for example.

Discriminating based on "sin" is NOT what these hypocritical bigots are doing.  You wanna discriminate based on "sin" - in particular - "sins" you yourself don't commit, the following list is much more honest in its itemization of behaviors that disqualify you from, in this case, getting a job at an airport with scheduled airline service, or being able to store your airplane at such a facility.  The prohibited sex in this list is sex religion endorses. 

The disqualifying crimes are:

• Murder.
  
  
• Assault with intent to murder.
  
  
• Espionage.
  
  
• Sedition.
  
  
• Kidnapping or hostage taking.
  
  
• Treason.
  
  
• Rape or aggravated sexual abuse.
  
  
• Unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, or manufacture of an explosive or weapon.
  
  
• Extortion.
  
  
• Armed or felony unarmed robbery.
  
  
• Distribution of, or intent to distribute, a controlled substance.
  
  
• Violence at international airports
  
  
• Forgery of certificates, false marking of aircraft, and other aircraft registration violation
  
  
• Interference with air navigation
  
  
• Improper transportation of a hazardous material
  
  
• Aircraft piracy
  
  
• Interference with flight crew members or flight attendant
  
  
• Commission of certain crimes aboard aircraft in flight
  
  
• Carrying a weapon or explosive on board an aircraft
  
  
• Conveying false information and threats (regarding threats to aircraft)
  
  
• Lighting violations involving transporting controlled substances
  
  
• Unlawful entry into an aircraft or airport area
  
  
• Destruction of an aircraft or aircraft facility
  

Or a felony involving:

• Arson
  
  
• A threat
  
  
• Willful destruction of property;
  
  
• Importation or manufacture of a controlled substance;
  
  
• Burglary
  
  
• Theft
  
  
• Dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation
  
  
• Possession or distribution of stolen property
  
  
• Aggravated assault
  
  
• Bribery
  
  
• Illegal possession of a controlled substance punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year.
  

Or Conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the criminal acts listed above

So the baker won't bake a cake for a gay couple, but has no qualm baking a cake for a rapist, or anyone guilty of any of the above.
Every claim for exemption on the basis of liberty has ALWAYS been in order to treat another fellow human being like shit.  Always.  Never has anyone tried to obtain religious exemption to HELP another human being.  Never.  Of all the execrable behaviors cultivated by religion, that one takes the cake.

[Cavebear]

The religious jackasses claiming they should be permitted to discriminate based on "sin" only care about one "sin":  Sex.  And not all Sex, just a narrow slice of possible sexual practice.  They don't seem to care if someone is a pedophile, for example.

Discriminating based on "sin" is NOT what these hypocritical bigots are doing.  You wanna discriminate based on "sin" - in particular - "sins" you yourself don't commit, the following list is much more honest in its itemization of behaviors that disqualify you from, in this case, getting a job at an airport with scheduled airline service, or being able to store your airplane at such a facility.  The prohibited sex in this list is sex religion endorses. 

The disqualifying crimes are:

• Murder.
  
  
• Assault with intent to murder.
  
  
• Espionage.
  
  
• Sedition.
  
  
• Kidnapping or hostage taking.
  
  
• Treason.
  
  
• Rape or aggravated sexual abuse.
  
  
• Unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, or manufacture of an explosive or weapon.
  
  
• Extortion.
  
  
• Armed or felony unarmed robbery.
  
  
• Distribution of, or intent to distribute, a controlled substance.
  
  
• Violence at international airports
  
  
• Forgery of certificates, false marking of aircraft, and other aircraft registration violation
  
  
• Interference with air navigation
  
  
• Improper transportation of a hazardous material
  
  
• Aircraft piracy
  
  
• Interference with flight crew members or flight attendant
  
  
• Commission of certain crimes aboard aircraft in flight
  
  
• Carrying a weapon or explosive on board an aircraft
  
  
• Conveying false information and threats (regarding threats to aircraft)
  
  
• Lighting violations involving transporting controlled substances
  
  
• Unlawful entry into an aircraft or airport area
  
  
• Destruction of an aircraft or aircraft facility
  

Or a felony involving:

• Arson
  
  
• A threat
  
  
• Willful destruction of property;
  
  
• Importation or manufacture of a controlled substance;
  
  
• Burglary
  
  
• Theft
  
  
• Dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation
  
  
• Possession or distribution of stolen property
  
  
• Aggravated assault
  
  
• Bribery
  
  
• Illegal possession of a controlled substance punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year.
  

Or Conspiracy or attempt to commit any of the criminal acts listed above

So the baker won't bake a cake for a gay couple, but has no qualm baking a cake for a rapist, or anyone guilty of any of the above.
Every claim for exemption on the basis of liberty has ALWAYS been in order to treat another fellow human being like shit.  Always.  Never has anyone tried to obtain religious exemption to HELP another human being.  Never.  Of all the execrable behaviors cultivated by religion, that one takes the cake.

Those are all human-decided laws.  And most bakers (or others) would not know about them.  But let's say a public store baker knew the person was a rapist but just wanted to buy a standard cake for a party.  Would the baker be allowed to refuse selling a cake?  I think not.

But what if the customer wanted to buy a standard cake and mentioned it was for a party of convicted rapists.  Could the baker refuse?  I think not.

But what if the customer wanted icing on the cake to glorify rape?  Then, I think "no".

[Kim]

Hey look, if this country can't figure out how to prevent a 15 year old from shooting 5 people to death then obviously, baking an lgbtq tolerant cake is going to be just too fucking difficult.

/cynical rant

[Cavebear]

Hey look, if this country can't figure out how to prevent a 15 year old from shooting 5 people to death then obviously, baking an lgbtq tolerant cake is going to be just too fucking difficult.  

/cynical rant

Wedding cake sold to any customer...



Wedding cake that "should not be made" for LBGTQ customer...



LOL!

[adey67]

You don't have to be a gay male to be a good male nurse, I know because I was a straight male nurse for years.

[Vera]

And, gays make great nurses

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Recently a Christian medical organization claimed that it really does not have the responsibility to hire gay employees or to treat disorders that are related to sin.

Also there's a situation where a photographer said  she doesn't want to go to these weddings and take pictures of things that really Disturbed her like two men holding hands, kissing, and everyone celebrating something that she thinks violates her religion.

I think the first scenario involving a medical organization is off its rocker really. They chose to enter the sphere of medical care and you know it's a public accommodation and they need to provide treatment in bounds with what the profession entails.  And, gays make great nurses

Amazingly I think the situation for photographer really really isn't Fair because it requires her to immerse herself in a ceremony and an experience that's intense. Now this is in contrast to a baker making a cake the cake goes to the ceremony the baker doesn't so he needs to get over it.  The photographer has rights just because she's a photographer doesn't mean she has to take pictures of anything.  She can choose her clients. If there are other photographers available, there is no reason why she should have to attend that kind of ceremony. Now if she's an expert of high regard and there's no one quite as good as her in the region, I guess that's too bad,  because there's got to be some limits here there's got to be some gradations and fairness for both sides.

The photographer and the baker can both simply choose not to provide their services to any weddings, straight, gay, or anything in between. They're not willing to do that though, and when they start refusing based on a protected class, it's bigotry plain and simple. Some have claimed that the baker here in Colorado should be left alone because there are a lot of other bakers in the area. Like most arguments made by bigots, that argument falls flat once you dig into it even a little. Consider rural America, instead of urban America, where people may have to drive 90 minutes and two towns over to get to the only baker in their area, only to be refused by some bigoted asshole because we allowed the one in the urban area get away with this kind of shit. Allowing one bigot to get away with this shit emboldens them all. If you don't want to take pictures of a gay wedding, don't sell wedding photography service. If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, don't sell wedding cakes.

Is this really so fucking hard for people to understand?!?

[rocinantexyz]

By my figuring: if you don't want to sell stuff to gay people, then you don't get a business license. Problem solved!

[no one]

When I can tell the idiot believers that they can't can't pray before a meal in my restaurant, because it offends my common sense, I'll be alright with people not wanting gay clients.

Until then, FUCK YOU! You narrow minded asshats.

[Vorpal]

There are right to refuse service laws. You can refuse to serve someone without a shirt, without shoes, someone who is intoxicated, or someone who is disruptive. A library can ask a loud and flamboyant customer to leave on they fail to tone it down. In some cases, a business can refuse service to a gay person if they can make the claim that they are disruptive. Police will support a business owner in ejecting an unwanted customer under most circumstances. The customer is free to sue about it later.

A compelling compromise that appears rational to religious folk might serve the situation better because discrimination can remain systematic and insidious especially when a law is perceived as unfair.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination in public accommodations. That includes retail establishments.

[Vorpal]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination in public accommodations. That includes retail establishments.

That is primarily applied in regard to race.  Later extended to other protected classes.  Sexual Orientation has not achieved status of protected Class in most states.

[Vorpal]

One transitional compromise is to allow religious persons to reject business with gay people when the business activity is so immersive that participation would feel like sustained hypocrisy and repugnance for the person.

Also, religious institutions performing the primary functions of religion could limit selectively hire only members of their church.

[Kim]

The 14th amendment states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, here is no codicil regarding sexual orientation ...

The Supreme Court has not declared sexual orientation as "a fundamental" or "quasi-fundamental right" under the due process clause of the Constitution, nor has it declared sexual orientation as a "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class under the equal protection clause.

The issue may be indispute by shit stiring, often ignorant, religious assholes people who think "equal protection of the laws" doesn't apply to sexual orientation. It's also why dipshit Justice Thomas sugested reconsideration of same sex marriage laws.

What we may accept as laws may not be as such without codification. Make this shit concrete & the shit stirers will have to find something else to bitch about.

[Aegon]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination in public accommodations. That includes retail establishments.

That is primarily applied in regard to race.  Later extended to other protected classes.  Sexual Orientation has not achieved status of protected Class in most states.

To add on to this, the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act applies to LGBT employees. Meaning you cannot be fired for being gay. But like you said, no ruling has been made about whether these protections extend to LGBT consumers. The Court declined to make any broad changes to anti-discrimination laws in the big gay cake case back in 2018.

[Bucky Ball]

Who would want anyone baking their cake or taking their photos who was not "friendly" ?
There's a very great deal of business available to those who are, and let it be known they are 'friendly".
Fuck 'em, if they're not. I'll gladly pay someone who is.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination in public accommodations. That includes retail establishments.

That is primarily applied in regard to race.  Later extended to other protected classes.  Sexual Orientation has not achieved status of protected Class in most states.

Right, but as in Obergefehl, in Federal case law, discriminating against gays is also seen to be a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection under the law. The implication is that not treating gays under the rubric of CRA 1964 would be a violation of that guarantee.

[Vorpal]

[Vorpal]

That is primarily applied in regard to race.  Later extended to other protected classes.  Sexual Orientation has not achieved status of protected Class in most states.

Right, but as in Obergefehl, in Federal case law, discriminating against gays is also seen to be a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal protection under the law. The implication is that not treating gays under the rubric of CRA 1964 would be a violation of that guarantee.

That case focussed on government action like  state constitutions treating citizens unequally, not private citizens.

The federal sodomy case focused on animus being the basis of the law, thus an irrational basis which is insufficient.

The case that found in favor for of the baker holding that state law had been applied with animus for religion shows the other side.

Animosity cannot be the reason behind laws or the interpretation of laws.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That case focussed on government action like  state constitutions treating citizens unequally, not private citizens.

Yes, I know. Did you follow the rest of my point?

The federal sodomy case focused on animus being the basis of the law, thus an irrational basis which is insufficient.

The case that found in favor for the baker found that state law had an animus for religion.

Animosity cannot be the reason behind laws.

... in a perfect world ...

[Dānu]

The case that found in favor for the baker found that state law had an animus for religion.

Animosity cannot be the reason behind laws.

If you're referring to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this contradicts my understanding. From what I understand of the SCOTUS decision, the majority opinion was that the law was not impartially applied, not that the law itself was biased against religion. Do you have a citation in support of your interpretation?

[Vorpal]

The case that found in favor for the baker found that state law had an animus for religion.

Animosity cannot be the reason behind laws.

If you're referring to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this contradicts my understanding.  From what I understand of the SCOTUS decision, the majority opinion was that the law was not impartially applied, not that the law itself was biased against religion.  Do you have a citation in support of your interpretation?

It was that the commission used the law in such a way they showed Animus toward religion.  My only source is the case itself.

[Dānu]

If you're referring to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this contradicts my understanding.  From what I understand of the SCOTUS decision, the majority opinion was that the law was not impartially applied, not that the law itself was biased against religion.  Do you have a citation in support of your interpretation?

It was that the commission used the law in such a way they showed Animus toward religion.  My only source is the case itself.

Yes, and that is not what you said in the quoted portion. They did not conclude that the law itself was biased against religion.